Starting a photo business using digital vs. film
Sarah
next year or so. I currently have a Canon Elan 7 and have just
completed my first darkroom class. My dilema is of course - stick
with film or go digital?? I am not sure if I want to invest in
darkroom equip or save up for a good digital camera and printer.
Currently I have a Canon 900S printer.
I'll mostly be photographing children outdoors - natural settings -
some movement - variable lighting conditions, etc. Can I reasonable
expect to get professional prints - up to maybe 16 x 20 with a digital
in the $1000 range? Or with my Elan for that matter? Suggestions and
recommendations are welcome! Thanks.
Lorene
Paul Rubin
> I am planning on starting a business photographing children in the
> next year or so. I currently have a Canon Elan 7 and have just
> completed my first darkroom class.
Take some portraiture classes too.
> My dilema is of course - stick with film or go digital?? I am not
> sure if I want to invest in darkroom equip or save up for a good
> digital camera and printer.
Don't invest in darkroom equipment. If you shoot film, use a
professional lab. Doing your own darkroom work is crazy unless it's a
hobby. If you shoot digital, it's iffier, but again you may be best
off with just a proof printer and use a lab for the real prints.
> Currently I have a Canon 900S printer.
Do NOT use an ink jet printer to print permanent pictures of kids.
The colors will fade over a few years or less and the parents will
hunt you down. Use the inkjet printer just for samples and proofs.
The Epson 2000 series pigment-based printers may be an exception--
they use special inks that are supposed to be fade resistant. But
I'd consider that iffy. We won't find out til years from now whether
those claims are right or not. We've heard similar claims for other
printers that turned out afterwards to be wrong.
Instead, use your inkjet for proofing and get final chemical prints
made at a pro lab. The results will be stunning.
> I'll mostly be photographing children outdoors - natural settings -
> some movement - variable lighting conditions, etc. Can I reasonable
> expect to get professional prints - up to maybe 16 x 20 with a digital
> in the $1000 range? Or with my Elan for that matter? Suggestions and
> recommendations are welcome! Thanks.
For that $1000 (maybe a little more) you can get a used Canon D30 or
Nikon D1 and get very good, clean prints even at 16x20. They won't
hold ultra-fine detail as well as a D1X or D60, but detail is not the
be-all and end-all for portraiture. The main two things you need
(besides skill) are lighting and a style that the kids respond well
to. Good professional lights may cost as much as the camera, but you
can probably start out spending a bit less. The style is mostly a
matter of your own personal approach. So that part is up to you.
Andrew
: I am planning on starting a business photographing children in the
I second Paul's recommendation not to do your own developing or
printing and use a lab for final prints.
How good will 16x20 portraits work from 35mm film from your Elan 7?
Easy: try one. I've had a few of my 35mm prints blown up that big
and they look pretty good, though nowhere near as good as medium
format (a little grainy).
I have a Canon D30 digital SLR and find that I get good quality prints
up to about 12x18. I have not tried going larger than that, but even
at 12x18 I can start to see I am near the limits of a 3.25MP camera.
Larger than 12x18 would start to look washed out, I fear, but I won't
know til I try...
Of course, you could invest all that money you were planning to invest
in darkroom stuff and buy a D60 for $2000+. I'm guessing portraits
at 16x20 would be fabulous. Again, see for yourself: poke around and
find full-size samples from both the D30 and D60 and have them printed
at 16x20 and see how you like the results. Compare to your Elan 7
print. This little experiment may cost you $100 for all these large
prints (maybe you can find someone local who already has prints?), but
at least you will see for yourself what kind of quality you will get
before investing all tha tmoney.
Alternative to that expense: From D30/D60 samples, get 8x12 prints
showing just a corner of what those large 16x20 prints would look
like. Use a computer to crop just a corner off those samples; you'll
have to figure out how many pixels in each but it can be done.
Instead of $100 you should be able to get corner prints for about $10.
Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com/photos/ <---- Andrew's Photography
----> http://www.moviepundit.com/ <---- Andrew's Movie Website
*******************************************************************
To respond by EMAIL, please DO NOT hit "reply". Email address
scrambled for security. Instead, please visit the web page:
Mxsmanic
digital will do--pick whichever costs less for you. Digital requires a much
larger initial investment, but it eliminates the continuing cost of film and
development. Film and development may be a very small part of your costs,
though, in some situations, so considerable analysis is required to decide
which solution is more cost-effective for you.
If you plan to offer extreme enlargements of photos (e.g., beyond 16x20),
film has an advantage in terms of resolution. Digital systems with similar
resolution, to the extent they exist at all, are so expensive that they are
almost impossible to justify unless you have mission-critical time
constraints.
"Sarah" <Lor...@pallasinc.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
9373b73b.02100...@posting.google.com...
Frank S
final use is enlargements (like family portrait and/or wedding shoots) I
believe your best choice is film (use a pro lab like others have suggested).
Personally, I'd recommend no less than 2-1/4 medium format for the work your
suggest. 6x7 is better (if you can lug the heavy beast around!).
I believe there's a right tool for every job. I have a barrage of camera
and lighting equipment including Nikon 35s, Mamiya 6x7s, an Omega View, and
currently a couple of digitals. I use the appropriate camera for the job.
This weekend I bought two new cameras....(yeah, I admit to being a camera
junkie!) a Nikon N80 film camera (my first AF 35!) and a Nikon 5700 Coolpix
(to upgrade my Oly C-2500L). Like I say, different tools for different
jobs.
If you can only afford one type of tool, and you are going to be using it
for your business, choose the best tool for the job, not the tool that puts
the biggest smile on your face :) Increased sales will put a bigger smile
on your face than cameras in the closet.
-Frank
"Sarah" <Lor...@pallasinc.com> wrote in message
news:9373b73b.02100...@posting.google.com...
Andrew Koenig
Sarah> the next year or so. I currently have a Canon Elan 7 and have
Sarah> just completed my first darkroom class. My dilema is of course
Sarah> - stick with film or go digital??
I would think that until you know enough to be able to answer that
question confidently for yourself, you are not ready to go into business
by yourself.
--
Andrew Koenig, a...@research.att.com, http://www.research.att.com/info/ark
Jet Wood
"Jeremy" <jer...@no-spam-thanks.com> wrote in message
news:w0go9.13564$OB5.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
| You need to consider the "image factor."
|
| If you shoot using what appears to be equipment that is readily available
to
| consumers, you may find that there is some degree os resistance by your
| potential customers to think of you as a "professional." You'll have a
more
| difficult time charging higher fees.
|
| This is especially important in wedding photography. If the hired
| photographer is shooting, say, a Canon Rebel, and Uncle Artie brought
along
| his Nikon F5, the hired photographer isn't going to look so good by
| comparison (and you can bet that Uncle Artie will be showing off his
| equipment--making you look like a cheap amateur by comparison)
|
| My suggestion is that you try to get equipment that is associated with
| professional photographers--Hassy, Rollei, Mamya, Pentax 6x7 etc. You can
| always start out with good used stuff to save money (just be sure to have
a
| backup body).
|
| Consider the alternative: who will take you seriously if you are using the
| same stuff that anybody can pick up at Best Buy?
Couldn't agree more. I arrived at a friend's wedding a few weeks ago with my
Minolta D7 round my neck (I had just taken a picture of the church from the
outside). The pro wedding photographer was waiting at the door (for the
bride, natch) with his Pentax 6x7 (and, it must be said, a particularly
cheap-looking flash on it). As I passed, he said, "you look like the
official photographer". I replied, "no I don't, but you do." He smiled
broadly.
John
>> My dilema is of course - stick with film or go digital?? I am not
>> sure if I want to invest in darkroom equip or save up for a good
>> digital camera and printer.
>
>Don't invest in darkroom equipment. If you shoot film, use a
>professional lab. Doing your own darkroom work is crazy unless it's a
>hobby.
Actually I did both. I used a pro-lab to develop and proof my films and I did the enlargements.
> If you shoot digital, it's iffier, but again you may be best
>off with just a proof printer and use a lab for the real prints.
I'll certainly agree with regard to digital. Anyone investing in digital equipment had better have deep pockets and real fast depreciation expectancy.
Regards,
John S. Douglas
http://www.darkroompro.com
John
>I second Paul's recommendation not to do your own developing or
>printing and use a lab for final prints.
FWIW, I think that one can certainly learn a lot from looking at the prints from ones own negatives in the darkroom. I assume that the same applies to digital.
John
>How good will 16x20 portraits work from 35mm film from your Elan 7?
>Easy: try one. I've had a few of my 35mm prints blown up that big
>and they look pretty good, though nowhere near as good as medium
>format (a little grainy).
What speed film were you using ? I've seen 35mm Portra 160 enlarged to 20X30 and at a viewing distance of 10' they looked surprisingly good.
Regards
John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster
Formulas, Facts and Info on the Photographic Process
http://www.darkroompro.com
John
>If you can only afford one type of tool, and you are going to be using it
>for your business, choose the best tool for the job, not the tool that puts
>the biggest smile on your face :)
And also consider the investment that you are making. Digital has a history of being quickly outdated and requiring quick reinvestments. One of my good friends still has his original RB-67 (not "S" and not "SD") and has a full set of lenses for it. It's 30 years old ! Imagine the ROI !
And lastly get something durable. Frankly I bought one of the 645 Pro's from Mamiya and while many people find it acceptable, I found it to be like many of the newer cameras. Cheesey and not durable at all.
John
>| Consider the alternative: who will take you seriously if you are using the
>| same stuff that anybody can pick up at Best Buy?
>
>Couldn't agree more. I arrived at a friend's wedding a few weeks ago with my
>Minolta D7 round my neck (I had just taken a picture of the church from the
>outside). The pro wedding photographer was waiting at the door (for the
>bride, natch) with his Pentax 6x7 (and, it must be said, a particularly
>cheap-looking flash on it). As I passed, he said, "you look like the
>official photographer". I replied, "no I don't, but you do." He smiled
>broadly.
I never really thought about it but then I carry an RB ;>)
Marvin Margoshes
"John" <jo...@darkroompro.com> wrote in message
news:ona3qu4ij1upk55i9...@4ax.com...
On 06 Oct 2002 21:57:00 -0700, Paul Rubin <phr-n...@NOSPAMnightsong.com>
wrote:
<snip>
>I'll certainly agree with regard to digital. Anyone investing in digital
>equipment had better have deep pockets and real fast depreciation
>expectancy.
On the other hand, the savings in film and printing proofs will quickly pay
for the digital equipment.
And being able to get proofs back to the parents in a hurry will help the
business.
Bryan Olson
> I am planning on starting a business photographing children in the
> next year or so.
> Suggestions and recommendations are welcome!
Well, since you asked... Learning darkroom skills today makes
little sense, unless that's what you really enjoy. The laws of
supply and demand dictate that the market value of film-specific
expertise will soon fall into the dirt. I gather that what is
important to you is the young subjects, not the developer and
stop-bath.
I'm not a professional photographer, or even a good one, but I've
wondered about a career change myself. I don't see starting a
business for one or two thousand dollars, or with mere hobbyist
skills. Most people who run a successful business started out
working for someone else in the same general field.
The plan I thought of was to learn all I could about digital
workflow, then hire on with an experienced pro who is struggling
with the film-to-digital transition. I could get his or her
technology act together while learning the business. If my main
interests don't compete, then once I've won my employer's trust, I
could start on my creative goals from within the same business.
Just a thought.
--
--Bryan
bryango at pacbell dot net
Andrew
: On 7 Oct 2002 05:40:12 GMT, SEE_BELOW...@bizaveNOSPAM.com (Andrew) wrote:
:>How good will 16x20 portraits work from 35mm film from your Elan 7?
:>Easy: try one. I've had a few of my 35mm prints blown up that big
:>and they look pretty good, though nowhere near as good as medium
:>format (a little grainy).
: What speed film were you using ? I've seen 35mm Portra 160
: enlarged to 20X30 and at a viewing distance of 10' they looked
: surprisingly good.
My 16x24's look good also and they are only a *little* grainy, not
overly so. But prints from medium format look much better. That's to
be expected.
Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com/photos/ <---- Andrew's Photography
----> http://www.moviepundit.com/ <---- Andrew's Movie Website
*******************************************************************
To respond by EMAIL, please DO NOT hit "reply". Email address
scrambled for security. Instead, please visit the web page:
patricia cove
>Do NOT use an ink jet printer to print permanent pictures of kids.
>The colors will fade over a few years or less and the parents will
>hunt you down. Use the inkjet printer just for samples and proofs.
>The Epson 2000 series pigment-based printers may be an exception--
>they use special inks that are supposed to be fade resistant. But
>I'd consider that iffy. We won't find out til years from now whether
>those claims are right or not. We've heard similar claims for other
>printers that turned out afterwards to be wrong.
>
>Instead, use your inkjet for proofing and get final chemical prints
>made at a pro lab. The results will be stunning.
>
Forgive my ignorance. I have done lots of chemical/film darkroom work,
and am now experimenting with my first digital camera, but I don't
understand how you can get chemical prints from a lab from a digital
original? Can you take a floppy (not big enough for lots of my digital
files), or a CD, or the memory card etc. to a lab, and get them to do
chemical prints? I'd be grateful for info. on this as it's new to me.
Or have I mis-understood, if so, sorry in advance. :-)Thanks,
P.
--
Patricia
sp...@coves.demon.co.uk Replace Spam with ngs)
The From address is NOT valid. The Reply To address IS valid.
Tom Thackrey
On 7-Oct-2002, patricia cove <n...@nospam.coves.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Forgive my ignorance. I have done lots of chemical/film darkroom work,
> and am now experimenting with my first digital camera, but I don't
> understand how you can get chemical prints from a lab from a digital
> original? Can you take a floppy (not big enough for lots of my digital
> files), or a CD, or the memory card etc. to a lab, and get them to do
> chemical prints? I'd be grateful for info. on this as it's new to me.
> Or have I mis-understood, if so, sorry in advance. :-)Thanks,
Most will take CD. Many will take memory cards (SM, CF, etc). Some will take
the files by email, FTP, or web site upload. Find your local pro lab
(they're the ones that don't brag about their 1 hour turnaround ;->) and
build a relationship with them, tell them your needs and work together to
figure out how they fit with your business. My business is eclectic so I
actually use 3 (down from 4) different labs depending on the type of job.
(one high end digital and E6, one for packages, and one for everything
else.)
--
Tom Thackrey
www.creative-light.com
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Jeffery S. Harrison
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hIecnTEKksc...@News.GigaNews.Com...
> If you will not be producing very big enlargements, then either film or
> digital will do--pick whichever costs less for you. Digital requires a
much
> larger initial investment, but it eliminates the continuing cost of film
and
> development. Film and development may be a very small part of your costs,
> though, in some situations, so considerable analysis is required to decide
> which solution is more cost-effective for you.
>
customer pays for it so it's free to you. Yes, if you reduce your
film/processing cost and don't change your prices your profits go up but you
can do the same thing by raising your prices too :-). If your customers
aren't paying for your film and processing you're not charging them enough.
Jeffery S. Harrison
Jeffery S. Harrison
this venture until you know exactly what you want to be doing with it and
what you need. You can start with what you already own. Start small and
slowly, your equipment needs will present themselves in time. There really
is little need to invest in darkroom equipment unless you're going to be
offering upscale service with upscale pricing. You'll be in the business of
making pictures and can get most/all of the darkroom services you need from
a pro lab who is in the business of printing pictures.
Jeffery S. Harrison
"Sarah" <Lor...@pallasinc.com> wrote in message
news:9373b73b.02100...@posting.google.com...
Brad Templeton
Jeffery S. Harrison <kar...@kpunet.net> wrote:
>
>"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:hIecnTEKksc...@News.GigaNews.Com...
>> If you will not be producing very big enlargements, then either film or
>> digital will do--pick whichever costs less for you. Digital requires a
>much
>> larger initial investment, but it eliminates the continuing cost of film
>and
>> development. Film and development may be a very small part of your costs,
>> though, in some situations, so considerable analysis is required to decide
>> which solution is more cost-effective for you.
>>
>Professionally the cost of film and processing is really a non-issue. The
>customer pays for it so it's free to you. Yes, if you reduce your
I'm sorry, but this is just silly. The customer pays for everything,
but this hardly means you don't care what it costs. If you save money,
you can lower prices at the same margin and get more business, or make
more money on the same business. Either way it's good for you.
However, the cameras cost more and depreciate a lot faster, so price is
not the first reason to go to digital.
You want to go to digital because:
o) You're doing digital anyway, even on your film, so it saves even
more time and money. It's a lot easier to work in photoshop and
everybody knows it. I find I can take 10-20 years off a
person's face with various Photoshop techniques in just a few
minutes and people _love_ it.
o) Immediate results are worth a lot to you, and to the customer.
Run a laptop slideshow at a wedding and I bet you will get a lot
more orders. E-mail a client a shot the same day and you'll
have a happy client. Plus you will always leave a shoot knowing
you got the shots you need, you will never have to re-shoot
unless the client insists, and thus pays.
o) Not having to stop to re-load at crucial times. Changing flash
cards and batteries is way faster than changing film.
You want to use film because:
o) More resolution, but not much more with the latest generation
cameras. More if you shoot medium format of course. Better
tonal range too.
o) Lower up front costs
--
Tour Japan on my photo server -- includes giant panoramas
http://www.templetons.com/brad/photo/japan/
Tom Pfeiffer
will cost nearly as much as real prints, and you can't really sell the
proofs from your printer because of the permanence issue.
Tom P.
"Marvin Margoshes" <physche...@telocity.com> wrote in message
news:3da1afb0$1...@nopics.sjc...
Tom Pfeiffer
digital camera you can buy for $1000 will be adequate for taking 16x20
prints routinely. For that you'll need a bigger negative or more Mp, say
6x4.5 or 6+ mp.
And as others have pointed out, whichever way you go, film or digital, you
probably will use a lab to produce your prints, so your money should be
spent on camera, lens and lighting.
Tom P.
"Sarah" <Lor...@pallasinc.com> wrote in message
news:9373b73b.02100...@posting.google.com...
Jeffery S. Harrison
>
> I'm sorry, but this is just silly. The customer pays for everything,
> but this hardly means you don't care what it costs. If you save money,
> you can lower prices at the same margin and get more business, or make
> more money on the same business. Either way it's good for you.
>
works for your market and provides you with the income you're looking for
then the cost of film/processing is a non-issue because that expense is
covered in your price structure. That does not mean that there are not
advantages (there are also disadvantages to digital that will impact your
business model) to digital that you can capitalize on but that also changes
the business model. Being able to lower your price is good but you may not
be able to handle the increased business that may generate so is that an
improvement? And yes, I do realize that you can always keep the prices the
same and increase profits. At the same time digital will allow you to do
away with film and processing it does present it's own problems. For one, if
I move to digital and start doing my own image processing then any given
image will take a lot more of my time than it does shooting film. With film
I can mount the negative on a crop card, write out my instructions and I'll
have a finished print in a week or two and I can use that week or two to
create more images to generate income. If I'm processing it myself then the
image takes a lot more of my time that I can't be using to create more
images. While digital will save you money on your film and processing that
really is a bigger issue for the amateur who absorbs all his operating
expenses that it is for a professional who shouldn't be personally absorbing
those same expenses.
> However, the cameras cost more and depreciate a lot faster, so price is
> not the first reason to go to digital.
>
There is no reason for the rapid depreciation of a digital camera to be that
much of an issue either. Yes, it looses close to all of it's value in a
couple years and will no longer be the sweetheart of the tech publication
about 2 seconds after you open the box but if you shopped intelligently it
will fulfill your requirements long after anyone would seriously consider
buying it. Just because it's no longer glamorous doesn't mean it doesn't do
the job and as long as it does the job you have no need to replace it.
> You want to go to digital because:
> o) You're doing digital anyway, even on your film, so it saves even
> more time and money. It's a lot easier to work in photoshop and
> everybody knows it. I find I can take 10-20 years off a
> person's face with various Photoshop techniques in just a few
> minutes and people _love_ it.
>
True, but you can do the same thing with a scanner.
> o) Immediate results are worth a lot to you, and to the customer.
> Run a laptop slideshow at a wedding and I bet you will get a lot
> more orders. E-mail a client a shot the same day and you'll
> have a happy client. Plus you will always leave a shoot knowing
> you got the shots you need, you will never have to re-shoot
> unless the client insists, and thus pays.
>
Perhaps, but I don't live in a market where that would make a significant
(if any) impact on my business.
> o) Not having to stop to re-load at crucial times. Changing flash
> cards and batteries is way faster than changing film.
>
When shooting in a situation where that would be a potential issue I use my
RZ and pre-load several backs. I can change backs probably faster than you
can change flash cards and batteries -- though I doubt I'd beat your time to
change just the flash card :-)
> You want to use film because:
> o) More resolution, but not much more with the latest generation
> cameras. More if you shoot medium format of course. Better
> tonal range too.
>
I shoot medium format whenever the circumstances allow -- Mamiya RZ67 Pro II
with 4--220 backs and 2--120 backs.
> o) Lower up front costs
> --
I'm going to be forced to move to digital within the next year. This is
going to happen because my local lab is probably going to be forced to close
because of the recent invasion of our island by Wal-Mart. When he closes I
lose the advantage of getting fast processing for 35mm film and will be left
with the choice of sending my film to Seattle to be processed along with my
medium format film or using Wal-Mart and/or Carrs and I will not do that to
my customers. If I want to be able to offer less than a 2-week turn around
I'm going to have to make that jump to digital. Unfortunately that also
means I'll probably be looking at a $7K to $10K investment to get up and
running (not to mention the usual problems of introducing "new" technology
into the work flow).
Jeffery S. Harrison
Mxsmanic
news: 3da1afb0$1...@nopics.sjc...
> On the other hand, the savings in film and printing
> proofs will quickly pay for the digital equipment.
That is a common misconception. There are many hidden costs to digital, and
the advantage you assert is not at all certain in all cases. Film costs are
often only a tiny part of the cost of running a photography business, and
printing costs do not change at all with digital.
> And being able to get proofs back to the parents
> in a hurry will help the business.
Maybe, maybe not.
Mxsmanic
news: v39vlWAh...@coves.demon.co.uk...
> I have done lots of chemical/film darkroom work,
> and am now experimenting with my first digital
> camera, but I don't understand how you can get
> chemical prints from a lab from a digital original?
Modern digital minilab systems, such as the Fuji Frontier, can produce true
photographic prints from digital files. The file is read by the system, and
a printer using scanning RGB lasers exposes the photographic paper, which is
then developed in the usual way. The results are excellent, and surpass the
quality of inkjet prints in an obvious way. The cost per print is no higher
than that for inkjet prints.
> Can you take a floppy (not big enough for lots
> of my digital files), or a CD, or the memory card
> etc. to a lab, and get them to do chemical prints?
Yes, absolutely! I do it all the time.
Mxsmanic
Nnqo9.3037$YR....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> You want to go to digital because:
> o) You're doing digital anyway, even on
> your film, so it saves even more time
> and money. It's a lot easier to work
> in photoshop and everybody knows it.
This statement is self-contradictory. Since everything is digital, even
with film, going to digital will not save anything. Indeed, since
everything is digital beyond the image capture itself, even with film, very
little is gained by using digital image capture, beyond speed.
> I find I can take 10-20 years off a
> person's face with various Photoshop
> techniques in just a few minutes and
> people _love_ it.
One wonders why they ask for a photo, instead of a painting, if all they
want is a favorable artistic interpretation, instead of reality.
Bryan Olson
[Brad Templeton had written:]
>>I'm sorry, but this is just silly. The customer pays for everything,
>>but this hardly means you don't care what it costs. If you save money,
>>you can lower prices at the same margin and get more business, or make
>>more money on the same business. Either way it's good for you.
>>
>
> No, not silly. The bottom line is that if you have a business model that
I think Brad nailed it. The long "business model" stuff doesn't
even disagree with him. Keep costs below revenue.
>>However, the cameras cost more and depreciate a lot faster, so price is
>>not the first reason to go to digital.
>>
>
> There is no reason for the rapid depreciation of a digital camera to
be that
> much of an issue either. Yes, it looses close to all of it's value in a
> couple years and will no longer be the sweetheart of the tech publication
> about 2 seconds after you open the box but if you shopped
intelligently it
> will fulfill your requirements long after anyone would seriously consider
> buying it. Just because it's no longer glamorous doesn't mean it
doesn't do
> the job and as long as it does the job you have no need to replace it.
To a business, depreciation is a big deal. If the competition
gets better equipment, that's a disadvantage. If one's own
equipment gets cheeper, that removes a barrier to entry for
potential competitors.
--Bryan
m_d©
TestaUser
On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 05:44:27 -0600, "Frank S" <fse...@qwest.net> wrote:
And also consider the investment that you are making. Digital has a history
of being quickly outdated and requiring quick reinvestments. One of my good
friends still has his original RB-67 (not "S" and not "SD") and has a full
set of lenses for it. It's 30 years old ! Imagine the ROI !
It's only outdated if you can't use it for what you need it for. As
long as it works for you it's not outdated.
HRosita
>I am planning on starting a business photographing children in the
>next year or so.
With all due respect to the posters of this group I think the best advice to
this lady is to enroll in a class about how to start a business.
My advice is to start researching what the parents of those children that she
plans to photograph want, how much they are willing to pay, do some volunteer
work with whatever equipment she has at the nearest school, kindergarten, etc.
Visit local fairs, sports competitions, and see what other photographers use.
An Elan-7 camera and a course in darkroom developing is not going to pay for
any equipment.
By the way, darkroom equipment is the last thing she needs. Just look at how
many one-hour labs have closed lately.
Rosita
TestaUser
> That is a common misconception. There are many hidden costs to digital,
and
> the advantage you assert is not at all certain in all cases. Film costs
are
> often only a tiny part of the cost of running a photography business, and
> printing costs do not change at all with digital.
basically $0. Maybe he needs a CD burner or something like that, still at
<$100 USD...
Maybe a printer, but that's around $100-200 USD.
Software *MAY* Be something he needs, depending on what he has already.
However, film and developing do add up. Case in point: 1 week in
Florida - digital I shot almost 900 pics (875 or somesuch)...
900/36 = 25 rolls of film
25 rolls * $5 USD = $125 in FILM ALONE
Processing 25 * $10 USD = $250
Total = $350 for 900 4x6 images...
Digital = 900 pics = $0
Printing the 125 "keepers" * $0.20 (Costco) = $25 USD
Savings $325 USD on this trip alone!
After 3 vacations, I saved the cost of my $1000 Minolta D7.
If you shoot a lot there are real savings with digital!
me
[snip]
> > o) Lower up front costs
> > --
>
> I'm going to be forced to move to digital within the next year. This is
> going to happen because my local lab is probably going to be forced to close
> because of the recent invasion of our island by Wal-Mart. When he closes I
> lose the advantage of getting fast processing for 35mm film and will be left
> with the choice of sending my film to Seattle to be processed along with my
> medium format film or using Wal-Mart and/or Carrs and I will not do that to
> my customers.
Wanna buy the guys outfit? You could either just buy his equipment,
or buy the place and continue to run it at a marginal profit. You
don't actually have to have it be a profit center as long as it pays
it's own bills. It could be cheaper than investing in all the new
digital technology.
Sarah
think about in the next yr. or so. I have a very specific business
model that I (and my business partner)want to follow. I am under no
illusions that we have MUCH to learn. I am enjoying this learning so
much. I just really wanted to know if we should focus on learning
with a digital and all that goes with it, or with a 35 mm.
Lorene
Andrew Koenig
Sarah> know if we should focus on learning with a digital and all that
Sarah> goes with it, or with a 35 mm.
I think you will learn how to take good pictures much more rapidly
with a digital camera because of the instant feedback.
A pearl of wisdom from a photography workshop I took a number of
years ago. Two, actually:
1) Everyone is born with 10,000 bad pictures inside.
You can't start taking the good ones until after you've
taken the 10,000 bad ones.
2) There are only two hard parts of photography: Where
to stand and when to press the button. Everything else
is just technique.
At the time, we were using Polaroid film for quick feedback. But
digital is both faster and cheaper. I think you can learn more about
the hard parts of photography (that is, where to stand and when to
press the button) with a digital camera--even a crummy one--than
with any other kind of equipment.
The foregoing is independent of whether you should use digital for
your prospective business. *That* depends on what your business is,
what kind of results you want, how you want to deliver them, and so
on. Until you know enough to be able to decide those things for
yourself, nothing that anyone tells you is going to help.
--
Andrew Koenig, a...@research.att.com, http://www.research.att.com/info/ark
patricia cove
light.com> writes
>
>On 7-Oct-2002, patricia cove <n...@nospam.coves.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Forgive my ignorance. I have done lots of chemical/film darkroom work,
>> and am now experimenting with my first digital camera, but I don't
>> understand how you can get chemical prints from a lab from a digital
>> original? Can you take a floppy (not big enough for lots of my digital
>> files), or a CD, or the memory card etc. to a lab, and get them to do
>> chemical prints? I'd be grateful for info. on this as it's new to me.
>> Or have I mis-understood, if so, sorry in advance. :-)Thanks,
>
>Most will take CD. Many will take memory cards (SM, CF, etc). Some will take
>the files by email, FTP, or web site upload. Find your local pro lab
>(they're the ones that don't brag about their 1 hour turnaround ;->) and
>build a relationship with them, tell them your needs and work together to
>figure out how they fit with your business. My business is eclectic so I
>actually use 3 (down from 4) different labs depending on the type of job.
>(one high end digital and E6, one for packages, and one for everything
>else.)
>
for my negative prints when I used to sell them. I see someone else has
also answered and given the process. Thanks to both you guys.
Marvin Margoshes
"Tom Pfeiffer" <to...@tompfeiffer.com> wrote in message
news:0Xqo9.4849$7I6....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> There is no savings in printing proofs. Any really good printer's output
> will cost nearly as much as real prints, and you can't really sell the
> proofs from your printer because of the permanence issue.
>
> Tom P.
>
Photographers don't have to make a proof print from every photo. With a
digicam, you review the photos on the computer and select the best for the
customer to choose from. The others have cost nothing.
It works with amateur as well. I took 7 photos on a walk in the woods
Sunday. I'll probably print one. With a film camera, I'd have taken fewer
pictures and paid to develop and print all of the ones I did take.
Brad Templeton
Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>This statement is self-contradictory. Since everything is digital, even
>with film, going to digital will not save anything. Indeed, since
>everything is digital beyond the image capture itself, even with film, very
>little is gained by using digital image capture, beyond speed.
If you are shooting film just to go digital there are reasons to shoot
in digital. Scanning is hard work and/or expensive. It introduces
further errors which the qualities of film used to more than make up for
but not at 11MP they don't, not compared to 35mm.
>
>> I find I can take 10-20 years off a
>> person's face with various Photoshop
>> techniques in just a few minutes and
>> people _love_ it.
>
>One wonders why they ask for a photo, instead of a painting, if all they
>want is a favorable artistic interpretation, instead of reality.
>
Anybody can make a photo of reality. Portrait photos are in part about
making a person look better than real, to capture some part of their
personality, to light them well, to flatter them. Much of the time.
Sometimes they are to be gritty and more real than real. There are all
sorts of purposes. But there is certainly a market for the flattering
portrait.
--
Travel the coast of Oregon in my photojournals
http://www.templetons.com/brad/photo/oregon/
Dave Martindale
> 1) Everyone is born with 10,000 bad pictures inside.
> You can't start taking the good ones until after you've
> taken the 10,000 bad ones.
That suggests that once you've taken 10000 bad photos, you'll start
getting good ones. Doesn't work. (On the other hand, it does make
expectations more reasonable for the first 10000).
Dave
Mxsmanic
> If you are shooting film just to go digital there
> are reasons to shoot in digital.
And there are reasons to shoot film. Digital gives you speed; film gives
you quality.
> Anybody can make a photo of reality.
Just as anybody can paint a picture.
> But there is certainly a market for the flattering
> portrait.
I've seen the success of Glamour Shots.
Jeffery S. Harrison
>
> Photographers don't have to make a proof print from every photo. With a
> digicam, you review the photos on the computer and select the best for the
> customer to choose from. The others have cost nothing.
>
> It works with amateur as well. I took 7 photos on a walk in the woods
> Sunday. I'll probably print one. With a film camera, I'd have taken
fewer
> pictures and paid to develop and print all of the ones I did take.
>
>
only 7 and why would you take less with film? I would be inclined to shoot
an entire roll of film on an outing and the smallest roll of film I own is 8
exposures (I usually only buy 36 exposure rolls in 35mm and 220 rolls in
medium format) I might be weird but I would think that you'd shoot more with
film just to be sure you got what you wanted. With digital you would be able
to preview your results to determine if you're going in the desired
direction (I'm not talking fine editing here, just overall results) or not
while film would require you to wait for the processing to be completed to
see it you're heading in the right direction requiring more exposures just
to cover the bases.
Jeffery S. Harrison
Steven Scharf
they're using Foveon systems. I was just at a high
end portrait studio last Saturday and it was all Foveon.
A $1000 digital camera is not going to cut it. And of
course you are not going to want to print out photos
yourself, you'll send them to a lab.
Don't try to go low end, you can't compete with Sears.
Go high end, charge for your services, and charge properly
for each sheet, i.e. start at $125 for the first sheet, then
lower for additional sheets.
Use coupons in parents type magazines to build up
business.
For outdoors, you probably want to stick with film
as a good digital set-up like Foveon is not very
mobile.
Lor...@pallasinc.com (Sarah) wrote in message news:<9373b73b.02100...@posting.google.com>...
> I am planning on starting a business photographing children in the
Steven Scharf
Not quite. You use Costco to print the keepers, so can we
also assume that you'd use Qualex through Costco for your
film developint? The cost is about $4 for a 36 exposure
roll, single prints. So subtract $150 to start.
> If you shoot a lot there are real savings with digital!
I have both, and each has their place, but the one thing I
hate with digital is the shutter lag. Taking photos of
anything moving is not possible.
Dave M
> It works with amateur as well. I took 7 photos on a walk in the woods
> Sunday. I'll probably print one. With a film camera, I'd have taken
fewer
I've started just having all my film processed, but not printed. That only
takes 15 minutes at Walmart while I do other shopping and costs about $1.75
per roll, no matter what size roll. Then I take it home and scan it at low
resolution to archieve and view it. If there is something I really want I
rescan at my best and print it. If that's not good enough I always have my
negative to take to a photoshop to have whatever I desire done with it with
professional equipment. But I don't wind up with a bunch of prints I don't
need or have to pay for either with 35mm film and I only have a epson 1660
scanner, which for $189 @ Staples does a pretty good job actually.
Tom Pfeiffer
comes down to whether you spend a few bucks on the extra prints or extra
time sorting through digital images. Time IS, after all, money. Especially
for someone who is doing it for a living, and not just occasionally.
John
>>"Sarah" <Lor...@pallasinc.com> wrote
>
>>I am planning on starting a business photographing children in the
>>next year or so.
>
>With all due respect to the posters of this group I think the best advice to
>this lady is to enroll in a class about how to start a business.
I wholeheartedly agree but even that may not be good preparation. A couple of one week seminars through Winona International School of Professional Photography ought to do it though.
Regards,
John S. Douglas
http://www.darkroompro.com
me
> "Brad Templeton" <b...@templetons.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> D9Fo9.13774$7I6....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> > Anybody can make a photo of reality.
>
> Just as anybody can paint a picture.
They can put paint on paper, calling anything I'd do a "picture"
would be a stretch.
> > But there is certainly a market for the flattering
> > portrait.
>
> I've seen the success of Glamour Shots.
In which most of the painting occurs BEFORE the picture.
TestaUser
"Steven Scharf" <sch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f153f94.02100...@posting.google.com...
> Not quite. You use Costco to print the keepers, so can we
> also assume that you'd use Qualex through Costco for your
> film developint? The cost is about $4 for a 36 exposure
> roll, single prints. So subtract $150 to start.
Even Mystic Color lab charges $10.95 for 36 4x6 prints.
> I have both, and each has their place, but the one thing I
> hate with digital is the shutter lag. Taking photos of
> anything moving is not possible.
That's the only thing I hate about my D7. But, unless I spend the big
$$ for the Canon DSLR, it's the best I can do! :)
Marvin Margoshes
> D9Fo9.13774$7I6....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> > If you are shooting film just to go digital there
> > are reasons to shoot in digital.
>
> And there are reasons to shoot film. Digital gives you speed; film gives
> you quality.
I used to hear the same sentiment about LP records vs CDs.
Kodak just announced a pro-leve camera with something like 123 Mp. Their
announcement calimed that the resolution of this camera is better than with
35 mm film, because film resolution is affecd by scattering of light within
the emulsion. There is a black layer on the back of the film, which comes
off in processing, to absorb some of the scattered light, but it only
reduces the problem.
Marvin Margoshes
>
> >
> > Photographers don't have to make a proof print from every photo. With a
> > digicam, you review the photos on the computer and select the best for
the
> > customer to choose from. The others have cost nothing.
> >
> > It works with amateur as well. I took 7 photos on a walk in the woods
> > Sunday. I'll probably print one. With a film camera, I'd have taken
> fewer
> > pictures and paid to develop and print all of the ones I did take.
> >
> >
> Only 7? Would have shot less with a film camera? I just don't get this.
Why
> only 7 and why would you take less with film?
I was only out there for about a half hour that day. I took some photos of
the lake, some ducks and geese on fallen tree branches in the lake, a couple
of flowers, and a couple of mushrooms. (I just counted; there were 8 in
all.)
Taking more photos with digicams than with film is often mentioned on the
NG. My wife and I took over 200 photos in two days with our digicams at the
Smithsonian Folk Festival this Summer. I tended to be pretty free with
film. On one trip, someone remarked that I was looking at everything only
through the viewfinder. But I take many more with my digicam.
Jeremy
> |
> Couldn't agree more. I arrived at a friend's wedding a few weeks ago with
my
> Minolta D7 round my neck (I had just taken a picture of the church from
the
> outside). The pro wedding photographer was waiting at the door (for the
> bride, natch) with his Pentax 6x7 (and, it must be said, a particularly
> cheap-looking flash on it). As I passed, he said, "you look like the
> official photographer". I replied, "no I don't, but you do." He smiled
> broadly.
. . . AND the higher the fee you charge, the more that the image factor must
be considered. People just EXPECT a professional photographer to "look
professional." If they wanted to have the photos taken with a disposable
camera, they could have just picked up one of those Koadk Wedding Packs,
with the 4 "fun saver" disposable cameras inside.
A used Mamiya C330 TLR will look better than a new Canon Rebel . . . The
trick is to have a camera that appears unfamiliar to the wedding guests.
>
>
>
>
Marvin Margoshes
"Marvin Margoshes" <physche...@telocity.com> wrote in message
news:3da46...@nopics.sjc...
Correction: That should read 12 Mb.